is, that, like citizens of ancient Rome, on whatever region they might happen to be caft, they may find themselves at home." When an Englishman is fuppofed not to know the terms of his own Law without an English Gloffary, what can foreigners do! Mr. Lofft has not helped them to one! We cannot but obferve likewife, that he is much too technical and minute in his book De Leg. Angl. Commun. in treating of Burglary, Arfon, Larceny, Replevin, Trefpafs, &c. If what he has faid of thefe, be Principia, as in a lax fenfe they may be fo called, he might as well have given half Viner's Abridgment, of the Statutes at Large, as Elements of the Laws of England.Still lefs was there any reason for publishing them in Latin they are the Indigines of this country, and not likely to travel much abroad. ; ART. IX. The Hiftory of Lord North's Adminiflration, to the Diffolution of the Thirteenth Parliament of Great Britain. 8vo. 3 S. fewed. Wilkie. 1781. TH The HE time for an impartial hiftory of Lord North's Adminiftration is not yet arrived. The minds of men are too much agitated by hopes and fears, oppofition and refentment, to form a difpaffionate judgment of recent tranfactions. Writer of this history has defeated the claim which he might otherwise make to impartiality, by fetting out with an unfair, illiberal account of the motives which firft engaged Mr. Wilkes in oppofition to miniftry, and of his confequent expulfion, &c. Among other things, having mentioned the illegal feizure of his papers, and arbitrary commitment of his perfon, without cenfure, or reflection of any kind, he fays, This proceeding brought to light a licentious poem, equally replete with profanenefs and obfcenity. Every individual member of Adminiftration was shocked at fuch flagitious impiety; and the offences of the man, in whofe cuftody it was found, against his God and his King, were defcanted upon with all the energy of virtuous reprobation in both Houfes of Parliament. Even Mr. Wilkes's affociates in those unhallowed orgies, which this poem was compofed for the purpose of animating, declared their abhorrence of the crime. The difcovery worked an immediate converfion on a noble Lord, who had heretofore been diftinguished by his zeft for these profanations: with tears in his eyes, he read to the house the maledictory verfes, and execrated them with all the fervour of new-born zeal.' If the Author intended this for irony, it is aukwardly introduced, and improperly expreffed. If he meant to be understood feriously, he muft either be a dupe himself, or intend to make his reader one. The bulk of this history is little more than a detail of the arguments which have been advanced pro and con upon the quef tions that have been agitated in Parliament, from the commencement of Lord North's Administration, to the diffolution of Parliament in 1774. Sometimes even the names of the speakers are added; at others they are omitted. The Writer is very fparing of his own reflections; paffing over much curious matter without remark, and clofing the moft interefting debates with a bare recital of the numbers that voted for and against the question. His language is in general plain and perfpicuous, but sometimes turgid and obfcure. For inftance, Mr. George Grenville oppofed the measures then purfued, although framed by the husband of his fifter: but his laboured refearches were conftantly nullified by the emanations of Mr. Pitt's enlightened mind.' Again, The boldness of this proceeding,' referring to the commitment of the Meffenger of the Houfe of Commons by the Lord Mayor and the Aldermen Wilkes and Oliver, in the affair of the Printers, The boldness of this proceeding, and the open defiance which was hurled at parliamentary privileges, when claimed independent of law, aftonifhed the nation; whilst the indignation of the Houfe at the infult which their officer had received, rofe to a height that feemed to threaten fevere chafiifement to the MAGISTERIAL TRIUMVIRATE.' 6 But left we fhould be accufed of felecting only the more faulty paffages, we fhall tranfcribe the following paragraph as a fair and even favourable fpecimen, both of the Author's language, and of the few reflections with which he has accompanied his narrative. It follows an account of the debates on the bill to regulate the Eaft India Company in 1773. We are not answerable for the propriety with which it is there introduced. "When the great Hampden contended with the Crown for the payment of forty fhillings, which he confidered as illegally levied, it was not within the compafs of human forefight to predict, that, in little more than a century, that noble zeal, in the fupport of the juft rights of mankind, would be loft in this country. When the Parliament, after the peace of Ryfwick, refufed to comply with a request made by their King and Deliverer, that he might retain his Dutch guards, the members who were then fuch auftere guardians of liberty, against the incroachments of regal power, little thought, that even their fons might be fenators, when Parliaments would become the mere echo of the Minifter; and that the most effential alterations would take place in the conditions of the Prince and the People, without any alarm being excited, or the body of the nation having any apprehenfion of the change. But when the manners of a people alter, their form of government will undergo a corresponding modification. Simplicity and frugality embrace liberty as the parent of every bleffing; refinement and luxury fpread a general indifference among the people, they become blind to confequences, and and fegnent in a general caufe; which furnish Ministers with golden opportunities to effect their purposes. Savior armis luxuria incubuit.' The Author profeffes to give the debates on the Petition of the Clergy in 1772, from minutes taken in the house at the time, and never before printed. He alfo claims a merit, which we shall not difpute, refpecting the accounts he has given of the fupplies and ways and means in each fucceeding year. Upon the whole, we cannot confider this as a very excellent performance. It may, indeed, be of fervice, in refreshing the memory of those who have not an opportunity of confulting the Parlia mentary or Annual Regifters: but it is not calculated to afford the Reader a comprehenfive view, or to enable him to form a found judgment, of the measures and spirit of the Adminiftration whose history it profeffes to recite. ART. X. The Duration of our Lord's Miniftry particularly confidered: in Reply to a Letter from Dr. Prieftley on that Subject, prefixed to his English Harmony of the Evangelifts. By William Newcome, D.D. Bishop of Waterford. 12mo. 2 s. fewed. Dublin printed, and fold by Longman in London. 1785. OUR UR Readers will find an account of the occafion and rife of this controverfy in our Review of Dr. Newcome's Harmony of the Gofpels, and of Dr. Prieftley's English Harmony of the Evangelifts +. In the Article laft mentioned, we took particular notice of Dr. Priestley's Letter to his Lordship, to which the prefent publication is intended as a reply. In that letter the Doctor wished his Lordship to enter into an amicable difcuffion of the question relative to the duration of our Lord's ministry, and defired in particular to know in what light the moft confiderable of the arguments that he had alleged in fupport of Mr. Mann's hypothefis appeared to his Lordthip's mind. Accordingly the Bishop has here entered into a particular confideration of the subject, stated the facts and circumstances upon which his opinion refpecting the length of our Saviour's miniftry is founded, and made obfervations on fome of the principal arguments of Dr. Prieftley, as they affect either diftinct portions, or the whole of the period that he has allotted to it. The facts and circumftances which his Lordship has here ftated are chiefly repeated from the Notes fubjoined to his Harmony. As we made fome large extracts on this fubject in our account of that learned and judicious publication, we fhall confine our remarks at present to what his Lordship has further advanced in * Review for October 1779. REV. June 1781. Ff + Review for February last. con confirmation of his own fentiments, or by way of reply to Dr. Priestley. His Lordship enters upon the fubject with repeating his opinion respecting the commencement of the miniftry of John the Baptift, and of Jefus, and endeavours to ftrengthen it with the authority of Lardner. Heefteems it probable, that John began to preach when he attained his thirtieth year; that is, about fix months before Jefus's baptifm;' and fixes the birth of Jesus on the firft of October. 'Now,' fays he, if Jefus began to be thirty years of age when he entered on his ministry, it will follow from my hypothefis, that he was baptifed in a ferene and temperate part of the year, fuited to the exercife of John's office as Baptift. And Lardner's words are," Near the end of the summer season, harvest and vintage being over, or near over, which was a time of general leifure, John began to preach and baptife." From fuch probabilities and prefumptions, I call them by no other name, I collect that Jefus entered on his miniftry about fix months before that Paffover which is recorded John ii. 13, &c.' Here his Lordship has been guilty of an inadvertency, which we fhould not have expected in fo cool and deliberate a Writer. For, if John did not begin to preach and baptife till near the end of the fummer feafon, Jefus, according to the hypothefis, was not baptifed before the February or March of the following year. On the contrary, if, as it is more probable, Jefus was baptifed fix months before the Paffover recorded John ii. 13. John must have begun to preach and baptife about the time of the preceding Paffover. The next point which Dr. Newcome takes into confideration is, the part of our Lord's miniftry comprehended between the Paffover John ii. 13. and that feaft of the Jews which St. John mentions ch. v. 1. as to which he endeavours to prove that the fpace of fifty days is too fhort a period for the events included in it. He fupports his opinion, among other confiderations, by infifting on the great probability that Jefus continued at Jerufalem all the eight days of the Pafchal Feaft. And under this head, in answer to the objection made by Dr. Priestley to our Lord's purging the temple at this first Paffover, from the boldnefs and provoking nature of the action, his Lordship has the following obfervations: * The bolder *" his action of purging the temple was, the greater is the praife of his fortitude. But I much doubt whe ther it was "the moft provoking of any thing that he ever did, refpecting the Jewish rulers." It was interpreted by them as an affertion that he was a prophet. Then anfwered the Jews and See Macknight's Harmony, i. 149. 2d edit. Dr. P.'s Letter, p. 11. faid unto him, What fign fhewest thou unto us, seeing that thou doeft these things? Jefus had not yet contradicted their prejudices relating to the Meffiah: and the question feems to be put without afperity. They might be affected by this part of Jesus's conduct, not only because he thus affumed a prophetic character, but because he might, possibly, obftruct the gain which arose to them from letting out the courts of the temple to prophane uses, and might be understood as indirectly reproving their avarice and impiety. But what appeared on the face of the action was highly laudable; an extraordinary zeal for God and his temple.' It is true, that, during the laft week of our Lord's life ‡, when the Scribes and Chief Priests heard, that he had cleanfed the temple, they fought how they might deftroy him. But according to my ftate of facts, circumftances were then widely different.6 And, as it is an important point in the hiftory of our Lord, I with that thofe who maintain only one cleanfing of the temple, would direct their attention to a circumftance which I have omitted in the Notes on my Harmony, where I treat this fubject at large: I mean, the different conduct of the Jews, when they afked Jefus, What § fign fhewest thou, feeing that thou doeft thefe things? and when for the fame action they fought how they might deftroy him. The fentiments of the Jewish Rulers feem more favourable to Jefus at the first Passover than at the last. Rabbi, fays Nicodemus, himself a Ruler, WE KNOW that thou art a Teacher come from God; for no man can do these miracles that thou doeft, except God be with him.' * Upon this reafoning, as far as it is intended to prove, that Jefus purged the temple twice, we beg leave to remark, that according to Matthew, Mark, and Luke, a queftion very fimilar to What fign fhewest thou, &c. was put to our Lord by the Jews almoft immediately after that action, and with an undoubted reference to it, viz. By what authority deft thou these things, and who gave thee this authority? The rancour of the Jewish rulers in general would, it is probable, increase by continued oppofition. On the contrary, we know that Nicodemus maintained a favourable opinion of Jefus, even after his crucifixion and St. John has informed us, that many of the chief Rulers believed on him, though the fear of being put out of the Synagogue prevented them from openly profefling themfelves his difciples. Under the next subject of debate, the continuance of Jefus in Judea after the first Paffover, the Bishop difcuffes a curious incidental question, respecting the comparative number of dif ↑ John ii. 18. John ii. 18. Mark xi. 18. Luke xix. 47. Ff2 Moles |